The Brother Jake Morning Show airs on CFMI-FM (Rock 101, Vancouver)
every weekday morning starting at 6:00 am. The program contains usual morning
show fare, such as news, traffic and weather reports, and songs. In addition,
Brother Jake, Marty Strong, Oly the Joke Guy and Corrie Miller discuss current
events and other topics of interest, which are sometimes of a sexual nature.
The hosts' patter, which is occasionally juvenile (examples being jokes about
flatulence), also includes jokes with sexual innuendo or that make fun of
particular groups, and comedy sketches of a similar nature. The program also
features a "Kids' Joke Segment" during which children are invited to phone
in and tell a joke. In the broadcasts reviewed for this decision, even these
jokes tended to include sexual innuendo. Transcripts of some of the segments
described can be found in Appendix A.

The CBSC received the following complaint, dated February 9, 2001, which
stated in part (the full text can be found in Appendix
B):

Our shop has had CFMI/Rock 101 on our music on hold for
over 10 years. I have previously written the station and told them how disappointed
I have been with their morning line-up with Bro. Jake, and that I like the
music, but think Jake and his crew are pigs. My decision to not listen to
the station personally in the morning had not yet affected my firm's music
on hold, but it has today.

We are a unionized electrical manufacturing firm, and deal
with the same like and kind. We are not easily offended, and on occasion,
I would reluctantly add, are ruder and cruder than most people you would
care to associate with.

I had a comment passed on to me today from one of my clients
[...]. When I questioned him as to what he heard, he stated, "Some loudmouth
jerk was going on about having sloppy-ass sex". (approx. 0835h). Not wanting
to convey that image to my customers, I immediately pulled the radio plug,
but needed for my own benefit to see what was on the station.

Upon tuning in on CFMI/Rock101 (approx. 0845h), I was entertained
by an animated discussion on exotic bedroom toys from "The Love Nest". The
discussion went on about ticklers and worms that the guy installed upon
his "schmegle" (sic). The conversation further went on about ben-wa balls,
where great lengths were expounded upon this topic - as if "he" was a hard
working x-music director for this station and he was now working in a dark,
deep, and wet place. I left listening to the station at this time, as I
had to conduct business. Approximately 45 minutes later I had to drive about
so I returned to CFMI/Rock101 where little had changed with the quality
of broadcast taste. Banter was going on about sports with Neil McRae. Apparently
he had got lucky the previous night, and Jake wanted to know how he was
"doin' on the workbench"? Neil, trying to stay on course, stated that he
knew his way around tools, to which Jake stated "I know ya' know tools,
but I'm talkin' about woman [sic]." The conversation went on about
the hockey (where the score was dog-balls, like the balls on a dog: 0-0)
and basketball games. A guy phoned in and talked on the radio to Jake and
Neil. I believe that this man was the coach for the Vancouver Gizzlies who
stated on the air amongst other things, "in looking at picture of McRae
in the paper, I didn't know that assholes had teeth," or something to that
effect. At that time, I turned the radio off.

In discussions with my co-workers, earlier in the morning
there were discussions on CFMI/Rock101 about shaving one's ass with almond-butter
(approx. 0630). You know ...., we can do a lot better than this.

I believe that the media should do a better job at policing
itself, because it has an influence on all the listenership, not just the
target marketplace. CFMI/Rock101 does not direct its misplaced anal humor
to those who take offence, yet it is the unsuspecting who usually do. The
20-30 year old listener probably could not give a rat's-ass about dildos
and what people do with one's posterior, but somebody has to. I no longer
will have to explain to my customers, let alone to a child, why the announcer
was talking about sloppy-ass sex, and I don't think anybody else should
either. I don't think the listeners of our city's radio stations should
have to endure ass jokes, cowboy-dick, gays inserting rodents up mates'
butts, or hot Dickens cider sketches (all of which I have heard on this
show on this station). Brother Jake may think this is funny, but I think
it is tragic and pathetic.

[...] I totally abhor government intervention, but in some
cases, such as this one, I feel that if you cannot control your dog, then
maybe the regulators can.

The station used to have class. The morning line up is
100% crass. Too bad ... I still like the music.

The Programming Director of CFMI-FM responded to the complainant on April
3 with the following, in part (the full text can be found in Appendix
B):

The Station targets adults 25 - 54, in particular, men.
The Station's contest prizes often include packages provided by some of
our key advertisement clients. It is a practice of the Program's hosts to
describe the contents of the prize package, which is sometimes connected
thematically with any upcoming occasion. On February 9th our
client, The Love Nest had sponsored the prizes. As is usually the case,
the Program's morning host described the contents of the prize package.
The type of prizes offered that day were linked with Valentine's Day then
coming up. We have reviewed this complaint with the Program's hosts to ensure
product descriptions on air comply with all broadcast codes.

We regret that the content of the prize pack and the discussion
of it by our hosts offended you. Many of the Station's listeners find the
Program and the description of the prizes humorous. Humour and taste are
extremely subjective elements and relative to the point of view of an individual.

You also object to the commentary about sports made by
a caller later on in the Program. Given the core audience, the host of the
Program often expresses strong opinions about sports. These opinions can
be quite controversial and often result in strong reactions from our listeners,
as was the case on February 9, 2001. However, please be assured that we
do not condone foul language on air. As a member of the CBSC, we take all
steps to abide by their Codes and have discussed this issue with all of
the on air staff since this incident. We regret that the Program has offended
you for that was not our intent.

The complainant requested that the matter be adjudicated by the British Columbia
Regional Panel and sent the following letter on April 15:

As I received [CFMI-FM's] response letter on April 4th,
I listened to the CFMI / ROCK101 morning broadcast for portions of the Jake
morning show the next day, April 05, 2001. The following observations were
made by myself during my on-again / off-again listening of this program.
I believe the times noted are close to the moment of these occurrences.

I further feel, as before, that I must object to the content
of the below noted issues, and wish for these new and further points to
be added to my original complaint.

[The complainant then provided a list of segments that
offended him and their approximate times.]

I cannot tell you or the CRTC as to exactly how disgusted
I feel about these type of broadcast occurrences. These observations were
made right after notice was supposedly given to on-air personnel on CBSC
Codes and my listening for this brief period of time.

I believe that this station's policing of broadcast ethics
is slim to non-existing, as CFMI / ROCK101 have shown no sign of remorse
or change. [The Programming Director] must be aware of what his on-air people
broadcast. [The Programming Director] appears to have tried to smooth my
ruffled feathers with a smarmy letter and a fond thank-you for being a long
time concerned listener, but it did not work because CFMI / ROCK101 did
not change. If I heard a good quality clean-act show on April 5th,
I probably would have let my CRTC complaint go, as all I was looking for
was an in-house correction on CFMI / ROCK101 policies. As the management
of this radio station appear to be financially successful with this type
of venue, there seems to be little desire to change the format I initially
objected to back in February. As a result, my stand has not changed either.

The complainant sent further correspondence on May 31:

Further to your letters of March and my responses of mid
April, I wish to advise you that I have not had any further correspondence
from you, the CRTC, or CFMI /ROCK101 with reference to my above noted file
of complaint. I wish to further advise you that the Jake morning show on
CFMI/ROCK101 is as bad - if not worse than it was as discussed in my previous
correspondence.

I am constantly amazed that this man and his administrators
allow for this crap to be still aired. I like the music, and the other DJs,
but Jake Edwards, or whatever his real name is, is a loose cannon that must
be tied down. I have got used to his base and anal "humour", where it no
longer shocks me. Because of Jake's limited repertoire of "humour" I have
heard most of his tapes and songs before. I now listen to him with the same
fascination, as I would view a bad traffic accident. As I, on-again and
off-again, listen to the radio between waking up and getting to work, I
make mental notes of the topic and times of occurrence and dossier these
in note format. I know that the radio station only has to retain their tapes
for a certain number of days, and that some of these notes are probably
now not provable. Nonetheless, please find attached a record of some of
the recent comments, which I generally take offence to, as being unsuitable
for public broadcast.

As a point of interest, I looked up the Corus Group on
the net, and was amazed at the size and value of this enterprise. I was
particularly interested to see that the basis of their market was family
and children oriented broadcasts. It must be very disappointing for them
to compromise their standards, to have a guy like Jake Edwards on the air,
but ... money talks. The format of male oriented radio must financially
work, as I understand that MOJO in Toronto is now going to have 7-24 broadcasts
like the Bro. Jake show. I guess that money does come before ethics.

[The complainant provided a second list of offensive segments
from the show from various dates.]

THE DECISION

The B.C. Regional Panel examined the broadcasts under the following provisions
of the CAB Codes:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 (paragraph 3):

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation
of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility
of the broadcast publisher.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 (Human Rights):

Recognizing that every person has a right to full and equal
recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters
shall endeavour to ensure, to the best of their ability, that their programming
contains no abusive or discriminatory material or comment which is based
on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex,
[sexual orientation], marital status or physical or mental handicap.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 15 (Sex-Role Stereotyping):

Recognizing that stereotyping images can and do cause negative
influences, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to exhibit, to
the best of their ability, a conscious sensitivity to the problems related
to sex-role stereotyping, by refraining from exploitation and by the reflection
of the intellectual and emotional equality of both sexes in programming.

CAB Sex-Role Portrayal Code, Article 4 (Exploitation):

Television and radio programming shall refrain from the
exploitation of women, men and children. Negative or degrading comments
on the role and nature of women, men or children in society shall be avoided.
Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body and similar modes of portrayal
should not be degrading to either sex.

The British Columbia Regional Panel reviewed all of the correspondence.
For the purposes of adjudication the Panel members listened to tapes of the
Brother Jake Morning Show broadcast on February 9, May 25 and May
31, 2001. The B.C. Regional Panel concludes that certain comments and audio
sketches containing sexually explicit content broadcast on the Brother
Jake Morning Show are in breach of Clause 6, paragraph 3 of the Canadian
Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Code of Ethics because they were
inappropriate for broadcast at a time of day when children might have been
listening. The Panel also found that other jokes and comments, such as those
making fun of particular ethnic groups, homosexuals, etc., and those containing
more sexual innuendo than explicit descriptions, were in very bad
taste, but not in breach of any broadcaster Codes.

Sexually Explicit Comments

A number of comments made by the hosts, as well as comedic taped sketches,
were of a sexually explicit nature. For example, in the February 9th
broadcast, the station was giving away a prize package with a Valentine's
Day theme. The package included a variety of sex toys, which the hosts described
in detail and to which they repeatedly made joking references during the rest
of the show.

Another discussion that caused concern involved one male host's alleged sexual
encounter on a workbench. The host described how his female date from the
previous night "starts to do this wild striptease" and "gets down to her thong."
He then went on to explain how he threw "her on the workbench" where "she's
goin' nuts grabbin' my nuts and I'm just thinking 'this is great!'". The discussion
continued for a few minutes during which time the host repeated how he put
the woman on the workbench and "was just givin' it to her." At one point,
one of the other hosts made the comment "You're a pig!".

One comedic sketch that contained sexual content was a clip of a woman with
a Mexican accent in the throes of passion, shouting out things such as "Oh,
the finger!" and "Oh, the tongue!"

The CBSC has dealt with sexually explicit radio content in previous decisions.
One such decision was CHOM-FM and CILQ-FM re The
Howard Stern Show (CBSC Decision 97/98-0001+,
October 17-18, 1997). The Ontario and Quebec Regional Panels jointly concluded
that Howard Stern's sexual discussions were inappropriate for broadcast at
times when children could be listening. One of the dialogues cited in that
decision involved Stern's account of his family vacation where his wife had
forgot to bring her vibrators. The Panels stated:

[I]n the view of the Quebec and Ontario Regional Councils,
descriptive opinion and comment such as that cited above regarding the sex
life of Stern and his wife, details of which were broadcast during hours
when children could be expected to be listening to radio is certainly not
proper material for Canadian children. The Regional Councils also have no
hesitation in concluding that Stern's language is not at all suitable at
an hour when children could be expected to be listening to radio. Moreover,
the issue of unsuitable language and the graphic discussion of sexual situations
occurs with consistency, day in and day out on The Howard Stern Show.

[...]

In addition, therefore, to the other concerns expressed
by the CBSC, it is its view that the time period in which The Howard Stern
Show plays is entirely inappropriate and that the unsuitable language and
graphic discussion of sexual situations which the CBSC found in the two
weeks of episodes it reviewed will be repeated on a daily basis in future
episodes, thus rendering the broadcasters carrying it in constant ongoing
violation of the Code of Ethics.

Unlike the other breaches found in this matter, which would
remain breaches of the Codes involved at any time of the day or
night, the suitability of subject matter for children is a time-related
issue. The aspects of the Stern Shows treated under this heading are unsuitable
by reason of their ready accessibility by children rather than by reason
of their nature. While perhaps not either pleasant or of broad social value
at a late evening hour, their broadcast would not be challenged at that
hour.

[...]

The CBSC considers that the "proper presentation of [...]
opinion [or] comment", in the case of children is a function of what is
suitable for them and it remains the Council's view that the description
of explicit sexual acts, abetted in these December and January episodes
by explicit discussions of violent acts, constitutes improper comment
and is in breach of Clause 6(3) of the Code of Ethics.

In the case of the Brother Jake Morning Show, the B.C. Regional
Panel also finds the sexually explicit content in violation of Clause 6, paragraph
3 of the CAB Code of Ethics for the same reasons. In the matter at
hand, not only might children have been listening when the remarks
were made, but children were in fact invited to be listening and
to participate in the "Kids' Joke Segment", which encourages children
to telephone the station and recite a joke on air. The hosts then judge the
jokes and reward the child who tells the best one. In those episodes reviewed,
the young people identified themselves as being between the ages of eight
and twelve. On the February 9th broadcast, this Kids' Joke Segment
preceded the aforementioned "sex on the workbench" discussion by a mere seven
minutes. Such material is unsuitable for times of the day when children could
be expected to be listening, let alone when the hosts are fully aware that
children are listening.

The Panel did not find, however, that these sexually explicit comments were
in breach of Clause 15 of the CAB Code of Ethics or the CAB Sex-Role
Portrayal Code. The comments were distasteful and inappropriate but not
degrading or exploitative of either gender. The "sex on the workbench" discussion
in particular was an unflattering description of an intimate act (vis-à-vis
both genders), but the male host did not in any way directly insult the woman
with whom he had had this experience. As the Prairie Panel said in CKX-TV
re National Lampoon's Animal House (CBSC Decision
96/97-0104, December 16, 1997),

While the portrayal of the women in the film is not overly
flattering, it cannot either be said that the portrayal of the men is any
better or advantages them in any way. All in all, the presentation of almost
every one of this group of young college people is as unflattering as one
might expect from a film emphasizing the frivolous, narcissistic, often
gross, occasionally disgusting portrait of college fraternity life which
can best be characterised as high farce. The question of portrayal inequality
does not come into play.

Other comments made by the hosts that were less explicit and/or consisted
of innuendo were not found to be in breach of Clause 6, paragraph 3 of the
CAB Code of Ethics nor of the clauses in the CAB Code of Ethics
and the CAB Sex-Role Portrayal Code concerning exploitation. These
instances included cases of innuendo, such as Jake's remark that he would
like the female host to "hold my import"; euphemisms referring to masturbation;
the hosts making fun of a newscaster for accidentally pronouncing the word
"deck" as "dick"; and so on.

Comments about Identifiable Groups

The comedic sketches and remarks uttered by the hosts occasionally involve
members of an identifiable group, such as gays or lesbians or individuals
on the basis of their national or ethnic background. For example, one recurring
segment features a character named Olaf who appears to have a Scandinavian
accent. Olaf frequently mispronounces English words, which are intended to
result in sexual double-entendres. It is a part of the back story that Olaf
claims he is from the fictional region of "Humpmeanddumpmestein" rather than
any real European country. Furthermore, no negative comments are made about
Olaf. Whatever humour there may be appears to be intended to flow from Olaf's
exaggerated lexical and syntactical errors rather than from any characteristics
of the individual or his presumed national or ethnic background. Indeed, the
hosts converse in an amicable way with the character and nothing in the episodes
aims to generalize negatively about people from Olaf's presumed ethnic origin.
In dealing with a parody of the former Member of Parliament Jag Bhaduria,
which involved the mimicking of the politician's own accent, the Ontario Regional
Panel ruled in CHOG-AM re the Jessie and Gene Show
(CBSC Decision 93/94-0242, November 15, 1994):

Provided that the satire or criticism is levelled at political
persons on the basis of their actions as public figures and not on the
basis of their national or ethnic origin, it must be permitted, if
not encouraged. In this case, the Council agreed with the station that the
parody had been directed toward Mr. Bhaduria himself, and not toward Indian
people as a group.

The B.C. Panel recognizes that the earlier Ontario broadcast involved a public
figure; however, it is its view that the principle can be justifiably extended
to fictitious individuals, provided always that the accent can be fairly understood
as being a light-handed, non-malicious bit of humour. As the Ontario Panel
also ruled in CHFI-FM re The Don Daynard Show
(CBSC Decision 94/95-0145, March 26, 1996), which involved a Jewish mothers
lightbulb joke, that joke,

while ethnically pointed, was neither demeaning nor abusive.
It was told in the context of a series of light bulb jokes aimed at feminists,
Marxists, surrealists, accountants, etc. It poked fun but did not bludgeon.
It tickled but was not nasty.

Correspondingly, the Panel does not find that this representation of Olaf
as a foreigner (or other segments featuring characters with Mexican, Spanish
and other accents) was in breach of the Human Rights Clause of the CAB
Code of Ethics.

Homosexuals were also the subject of many taped audio sketches during the
shows reviewed. In one such sketch, the "Gay James Bond" spoke in a stereotypically
effeminate voice in "trying" to seduce his enemy, "Mr. Blowfellow". Although
this sketch, and others like it, presented stereotypical images of homosexual
males, the Panel does not consider that they constituted abusively or unduly
discriminatory comment with respect to this identifiable group on the basis
of their sexual orientation. In CILQ-FM re Parody
Skit (CBSC Decision 95/96-0218, May 8, 1997),
the Ontario Regional Panel was called upon to deal with a skit entitled "Bob
the Fag Man". The Panel found no breach:

There is nothing complex about the matter under consideration
here. The short skit in question is intended as a parody. It plays on the
double entendre of the word "fag", which is used primarily in Britain
and its former colonies as a slang term for cigarette, and which has a slang
usage in North America to describe a gay man. The sole issue for the Council
to consider is whether or not this use of the term was abusively
discriminatory vis-à-vis gay men. In the view of the Council,
it is not. While possibly an unflattering term, it does not, in the Council's
view, rank with certain racial or ethnic epithets (which it does not wish
to repeat here), particularly since members of the gay community use the
word themselves from time to time in a non-discriminatory fashion. At worst,
"fag" could be considered to be in poor taste, a matter on which the CBSC
does not rule. In consequence, the Council finds that there is no breach
of the Code.

In all, the Panel concludes that the comments and segments involving identifiable
groups in the Brother Jake Morning Show episodes reviewed were not
abusively or unduly discriminatory and thus not in contravention of Clause
2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Matters of Taste

The B.C. Regional Panel views much of the content of the Brother Jake
Morning Show as juvenile, sophomoric, locker room-style and in poor taste.
The hosts frequently discuss and make jokes about masturbation, flatulence
and bodily functions and engage in discussions about such matters as Jake
in his boxer shorts, "blue angel" farts, and a 0-0 sports score as being "dog
balls". Although potentially offensive to many listeners, in cases where such
material is not sexually explicit, the Panel does not find it in breach of
any broadcaster Codes. As the Quebec and Ontario Regional Panels stated in
CHOM-FM and CILQ-FM re The Howard Stern Show
(CBSC Decision 97/98-0001+, October 17-18, 1997),

Many of the complaints received regarding The Howard Stern
Show related to questions of taste. Stern was accused of being offensive,
vulgar, adolescent, rude, unsuitable, outrageous, sick, tasteless and so
on. [...] The Quebec and Ontario Regional Councils are, however, agreed
that, under the present Codes, matters of taste must be left to be regulated
by the marketplace. Such choices remain those of the listener. This is the
time when the on/off switch is the listener's coping mechanism. Unless comments
made by a broadcaster are of a nature to breach the provisions of one or
more of the Codes, the CBSC will not judge them one way or the other.

The foregoing remarks on the episodes of the Vancouver radio show currently
under consideration, even if in poor taste, are not sufficiently sexually
explicit to be found in breach of Clause 6, paragraph 3, of the CAB Code
of Ethics.

BROADCASTER RESPONSIVENESS

In all CBSC decisions, the Regional Panels assess the broadcaster's responsiveness
to the complainant. Although the broadcaster need not agree with the complainant,
it is expected that its representatives charged with replying to complaints
will address all the complainant's concerns in a thorough and respectful manner.
In this case, the Panel finds that the broadcaster's response was, in this
regard, entirely appropriate in that it addressed the specific points brought
up by the complainant. The Panel considers that CFMI-FM has met its responsiveness
responsibilities of CBSC membership.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION

CFMI-FM is required to: 1) announce this decision, in the following terms,
once during peak listening hours within three days following the release of
this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this
decision in the time period in which the Brother Jake Morning Show
is broadcast; 2) within fourteen days following the broadcast of the announcements,
to provide written confirmation of the airing of the announcements to the
complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) to provide the CBSC with
that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the
two announcements which must be made by CFMI-FM.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CFMI-FM has breached
the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics during
the Brother Jake Morning Show on February 9, May 25 and May 31,
2001. The episodes included sexually explicit material which was broadcast
at times of the day when children could be expected, and were encouraged
by the broadcaster, to be listening, contrary to Clause 6, paragraph 3 of
the Code of Ethics which requires that broadcasters ensure the
proper presentation of opinion and comment.

This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast
Stand